After they banned me for adding true, reliably sourced info that portrayed certain politicians in a negative light, I started creating "sockpuppet" accounts, and the bolded stuff below is about what I wrote.

The wikipedia article in question can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76956.html

Solyndra controversy debate rages on Wikipedia

By Andrew Restuccia

June 1, 2012

The political war of words over Solyndra is spawning the inevitable editing battle on Wikipedia.

Just as President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clash on the substance of the Solyndra episode, so do the people editing Wikipedia, who toil behind the scenes correcting — and re-correcting — the site’s millions of entries.

Visitors to the “Solyndra loan controversy” page are greeted with a note: “The neutrality of this article is disputed.”

That’s an understatement.

From its creation in September, the page has sparked heated debate. Users have made more than 250 revisions, some of which other users promptly reversed.

“This article reads like something you would see on foxnews.com and that was written by a member of the GOP or Tea Party,” one user wrote on the article’s “talk” page in September, shortly after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. “Right wing rubbish with nothing but weasel wording and carefully ‘parsed’ links. You read this and you get more stupid about what's going on (which is probably its purpose.)”

Another added in October: “It’s crap on a stick.”

Editors on Wikipedia have also taken the precaution of prohibiting unregistered users from changing the article, a common step for controversial topics.

While vigorous debate among Wikipedia editors over an entry is commonplace, the Solyndra fight mirrors the divisive political dialogue on the ill-fated solar company, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration in 2009.

The GOP has alleged that the administration approved the loan to please Obama’s campaign donors, a claim that Republicans in Congress have been unable to prove after more than a year of document requests and hearings. But they have unearthed emails documenting keen interest by White House aides in the company’s travails, debates about the optics of Obama’s May 2010 visit to its plant in California, and discussions about Solyndra between federal officials and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser — enough to keep the issue simmering.

So it’s little surprise to see it boiling over online.

Here’s one Wikipedia user ranting last year about “innuendo” in the article that he says supports conservative talking points: “Solyndra met with White House officials? I should hope so! They gave money to Obama's campaign? So? Did they give to McCain's? That happens all the time. They spent a lot of money lobbying? I'm sure they lobbied both sides. How is that even related to Obama? And a solar power company's owners are rich Democrats who contributed to the Democratic presidential campaign? What a shock!”

Some took on Solyndra’s promise of job creation.

“The entire justification for the loan was that it was supposed to create 4,000 new jobs,” a user nicknamed “Mk2z0h” wrote last year. “To remove this info from the article does not make any sense. I have put the info back into the article. Please do not remove it again.”

User Kari Hazzard shot back: “Says who? The claim that the purpose was to create 4,000 jobs is disputed, un-encyclopedic, full of weasel words and not supported by reliable sources. … I've removed the text (again) because Wikipedia is not a soapbox.”

As of Thursday night, the 4,000-job statement was at the top of the article, and attributed to an ABC News story from August.

By January, Hazzard seemed convinced that the article had improved, asking if users would consent to remove the long-standing tag warning of the entry’s bias.

But the request was met with opposition.

One user, “M.boli,” argued that the article gave too much prominence to a series of internal documents showing that administration officials had worried about the public relations fallout from the Solyndra collapse.

An impartial entry about the Solyndra loan affair, M.boli said, “might plausibly focus on the who, what, when, where, and how of the controversy. The actions of the Obama administration play a minor part in that story, a few paragraphs.”

As of Thursday, the Wikipedia community still hadn’t come to a consensus on the entry, and the tag warning remained.

“Still any reason for the tag?” user William Jockusch wrote Monday, to no response. (Elsewhere, Jockusch complains that Wikipedia’s biographical entry on Obama contains only “brief and indirect” criticisms of the president, in contrast to harsher criticisms contained in articles about George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.)

Vigilant editors continue to watch the Solyndra loan entry in a never-ending fight to ward off “sock puppetry,” the Wikipedia term for users who create multiple accounts to embellish or distort entries.

One persistent user, branded a sock puppet by Wikipedia editors, has been trying for days to add a section linking to an unsubstantiated April news report that Solyndra “may be trying to abandon toxic waste” at one of its facilities in California.

Said “Loonymonkey,” a regular Wikipedia editor after removing the reference on Saturday: “Same sock, different day.”